Abstract

Footnotes (187)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1083639. ; Size: 672K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Human Trafficking for Labor Exploitation: Interpreting the Crime

The definition of human trafficking for labour exploitation, as follows from the European Council Framework Decision, proves to be unclear. Literal interpretation does not suffice, because it does not clarify all elements of what is deemed to be criminal behaviour, and hermeneutical interpretation also falls short discouraging the aim of this legislation, namely harmonisation. Hence, another solution is required. This article does so by firstly challenging assumptions about human trafficking for labour exploitation that are generally pertinent, but nonetheless untrue. This accurate appraisal of the crime's nature is followed by a synopsis of national legislation and adjudication in three Member States, so as to also focus on these actualities regarding the crime that are commonly not conceived. This article examines two countries that have implemented the Framework Decision, namely Belgium and the Netherlands, and one that has not yet done so, the United Kingdom. Thereafter remaining unexplained elements of the Framework Decision's definition are interpreted with use of international, pan-European and European legislation and adjudication. Based upon all this, a suggested interpretation of the Framework Decision's definition is provided so as to overcome all identified difficulties with it.